Is Brazil's ban of social media platform X legal or political? | Inside Story

Summary

Social media platform X faces a ban in Brazil due to non-compliance with a court order to block accounts related to disinformation. The incident has ignited debates on the impact of social media on politics, freedom of speech, and misinformation. Elon Musk, X's owner, claims the ban is a violation of free speech, while others argue it's a necessary measure to uphold sovereignty and judicial authority. The discussion highlights the challenges of regulating tech giants and the potential for similar actions in other countries.

Takeaways

• 📢 Social media platform X faces a ban in Brazil due to non-compliance with a court order to block accounts related to disinformation.
• 🗣️ Elon Musk, the owner of X, claims the ban is an attack on free speech and has accused the Brazilian Supreme Court judge of censorship.
• 🌐 The incident sparks a debate on the influence of social media in politics, freedom of speech, and the control of misinformation.
• 🚫 Brazil is not alone in restricting social media; X has been banned or restricted in countries like Pakistan, Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran, and Egypt.
• 💡 The ban raises questions about how social media giants should be regulated and whether censorship is being used as a political tool.
• 🤔 There's a division among Brazilians; some support the ban, viewing it as a necessary measure against disinformation, while others see it as a restriction on free speech.
• 🏛️ The Brazilian Supreme Court judge argues that X's refusal to comply with the court order is a violation of Brazilian sovereignty.
• 📉 The ban could significantly impact X, as Brazil is one of its largest markets, with approximately 40 million users.
• 🌟 Elon Musk is portrayed as a champion of free speech by some, especially those aligned with conservative views, while others see his actions as disrespectful to legal authorities.
• 🔍 The discussion highlights the broader global issue of how different countries are approaching the regulation of social media platforms and the balance between free speech and national laws.

Q & A

What is the main issue discussed in the video script?

The main issue discussed is the ban of social media platform X in Brazil due to its failure to comply with a court order to block accounts linked to disinformation, and the ensuing debate over freedom of speech, political involvement, and the potential for other countries to follow suit.

Who is the Supreme Court judge involved in the dispute with Elon Musk?

The Supreme Court judge involved in the dispute with Elon Musk is Judge Alexander de Mor.

What did Elon Musk call Judge de Mor, and why?

Elon Musk called Judge de Mor an 'evil dictator', accusing him of trying to silence dissent and conservative views by ordering the suspension of accounts linked to spreading disinformation.

How has the Brazilian government responded to the ban of platform X?

The Brazilian government, under President Luis inas Lula Silva, welcomed the ruling, stating that having a lot of money doesn't allow one to disrespect the Supreme Court.

What is the significance of the platform X being banned in Brazil?

The ban is significant as Brazil is one of the largest markets for X, with approximately 40 million users, which is about one-fifth of the population accessing the platform at least once a month.

What are the arguments against the ban of X in terms of free speech?

The arguments against the ban suggest that it is a transgression of the right to free speech and a suspension of democracy, with critics, particularly those associated with the right-wing, claiming that the ban is politically motivated.

How do the guests on the program view the ban as a response to Elon Musk's actions?

The guests view the ban as a necessary measure taken by the Brazilian judiciary against the platform's refusal to comply with legal orders and its propagation of misinformation and hate speech.

What is the role of social media platforms like X in politics according to the discussion?

Social media platforms like X play a significant role in politics by influencing the spread of information, shaping public opinion, and potentially affecting political outcomes, as evidenced by their impact on elections and political movements globally.

What are the implications of the ban for the freedom of speech and misinformation debate?

The ban highlights the ongoing debate about the balance between freedom of speech and the need to control misinformation, with the incident raising questions about the accountability of social media platforms and the role of governments in regulating them.

How do the panelists suggest that other countries might approach the regulation of social media platforms?

The panelists suggest that other countries might look to the Brazilian example as a precedent for establishing checks and balances, and for creating clear regulations that social media platforms must adhere to within their jurisdictions.

What is the potential impact of the ban on the operations of X and similar platforms globally?

The potential impact includes a reevaluation of their legal responsibilities, a possible shift in their approach to complying with local laws, and a broader discussion on the global standards for social media regulation.

Outlines

00:00

📰 Social Media Giant X Faces Ban in Brazil

Social media platform X has been banned in Brazil due to its failure to comply with a court order to block accounts linked to disinformation. The ban has sparked a debate on the role of social media in politics, freedom of speech, and the spread of misinformation. Elon Musk, the owner of X, has criticized the ban as an attack on free speech. The situation has implications for how social media giants are regulated and whether censorship is being used as a political tool. The ban also raises questions about the potential for similar actions in other countries.

05:02

🗣️ Controversy Over Free Speech and Sovereignty

The ban of social media platform X in Brazil has stirred controversy, reflecting the country's political divide. While some support the court order, others, particularly those associated with the right-wing, claim it's a violation of free speech and democratic principles. Elon Musk has positioned himself as a champion of free speech, resisting what he views as politically motivated censorship. The debate touches on the broader question of whether free speech or national sovereignty should take precedence, with implications for how social media platforms are governed globally.

10:04

🌐 Global Implications and Political Divides

The ban of X in Brazil is part of a larger global narrative where social media platforms are being scrutinized for their role in politics and the spread of information. The platform's ban in Brazil follows similar actions in other countries like Pakistan, Venezuela, and Russia, each citing different reasons ranging from national security to contested elections. The situation highlights the power dynamics between tech giants and nation-states, as well as the complexities of balancing free speech with the need to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech.

15:06

🏛️ Legal and Political Tensions in Brazil

The decision to ban X in Brazil is a culmination of escalating tensions between the judiciary and the company. The judiciary has taken successive measures, including warnings and fines, leading up to the ban as a last resort. The situation underscores the need for clear regulations and norms for social media operations in different countries. It also reflects the broader challenges democracies face in holding tech companies accountable while navigating the political divides exacerbated by social media platforms.

20:07

🛑 The Impact of Unchecked Social Media Regulation

The ban of X in Brazil and the responses to it highlight the consequences of unchecked social media regulation. The discussion points to the need for a reevaluation of the balance between regulation and free expression, especially in the context of democratic societies. The situation serves as a lesson for other countries on the importance of establishing clear parameters and checks and balances for social media companies. It also underscores the role of politics in shaping the narrative around social media regulation and the influence of tech CEOs on public discourse.

25:07

📉 The Consequences for X and the Way Forward

The ban of X in Brazil has significant implications for the company, which has a substantial user base in the country. The discussion suggests that while the ban may be a setback, it also presents an opportunity for the company and other social media platforms to reassess their approach to regulation and compliance with local laws. It raises questions about the future of social media platforms in a global context where national laws and regulations are increasingly being enforced, and the need for these companies to adapt their strategies accordingly.

Keywords

💡Social Media Platform

A social media platform refers to an online service that allows users to create and share content or participate in social networking. In the video, the platform 'X' is a central focus, representing the broader category of social media services that facilitate communication, information sharing, and community building. The discussion revolves around the ban of 'X' in Brazil, highlighting the platform's role in political discourse and the spread of information.

💡Disinformation

Disinformation is false information that is deliberately created and spread with the intent to deceive and mislead. In the context of the video, the Supreme Court judge's actions against 'X' are driven by concerns over disinformation being spread through the platform. The script mentions accounts linked to disinformation, which underscores the tension between free speech and the potential harm caused by the deliberate spread of false information.

💡Censorship

Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. The video discusses allegations of censorship on 'X', where the platform is accused of suppressing certain political views. This term is central to the debate on whether 'X' is limiting free speech by complying with or resisting court orders to block accounts.

💡Free Speech

Free speech is the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. It is a fundamental concept in democratic societies. The video explores the conflict between free speech and the regulation of 'X' in Brazil. Elon Musk, the owner of 'X', frames the issue as a crackdown on free speech, suggesting that the court's actions are an infringement on this right.

💡Elon Musk

Elon Musk is a tech billionaire and the owner of 'X'. In the video, he is portrayed as a central figure in the dispute over the platform's operations in Brazil. His views on free speech and resistance to court orders make him a key player in the debate on the regulation of social media and its impact on democracy and information dissemination.

💡Supreme Court Judge

The Supreme Court Judge, referred to as 'Alexander de Mor' in the script, is a judicial authority who has ordered 'X' to suspend accounts linked to disinformation. His actions represent the Brazilian judiciary's response to what they perceive as unlawful behavior by 'X'. The judge's decisions and the subsequent ban on 'X' are central to the video's discussion on the balance of power between social media platforms and national legal systems.

💡Political Divide

A political divide refers to a significant difference in beliefs, attitudes, or opinions between opposing political groups. The video script alludes to the political divide in Brazil, where the ban on 'X' is seen by some as a partisan decision. The platform's role in politics is highlighted, with the ban potentially affecting different political factions differently, reflecting the broader impact of social media on political discourse.

💡Regulation

Regulation in this context refers to the rules and policies established by a government or regulatory authority to control an industry or activity. The video discusses the need for and methods of regulating social media giants like 'X'. It raises questions about how to balance the need for oversight to prevent the spread of misinformation with the protection of free speech and the avoidance of censorship.

💡Misinformation

Misinformation is false information that is spread, regardless of whether there was an intent to mislead. The video script mentions 'X' being used to spread misinformation, which has led to legal actions against the platform. This term is crucial to understanding the concerns that have prompted the Brazilian court to take action against 'X', as it relates to the broader issue of how social media can influence public opinion and behavior.

💡Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources. In the video, the concept of sovereignty is tied to Brazil's right to enforce its laws and regulations on 'X'. The ban is presented as an assertion of Brazil's sovereign authority to manage what happens within its borders, even when it involves international tech companies.

Highlights

Social media platform X faces a ban in Brazil due to non-compliance with a court order to block disinformation-linked accounts.

Elon Musk, the owner of platform X, claims the ban is an attack on free speech and a form of political censorship.

The ban in Brazil adds to an ongoing global debate about social media's role in politics and the spread of misinformation.

The Brazilian Supreme Court judge argues that platform X has been used to spread disinformation, and Musk is accused of protecting dissenting conservative voices.

Brazil's current president supports the ban, stating that Musk's wealth does not excuse him from respecting the country's institutions.

Platform X has been banned or restricted in several countries, including Pakistan, Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran, and Egypt, often citing national security or political stability concerns.

The Brazilian ban could set a precedent for other countries considering similar actions against social media platforms that fail to comply with local regulations.

Flora Rebella Aruni, a guest on the show, argues that the ban is not a violation of free speech but a response to Musk's refusal to respect Brazilian law.

Chris Stokel-Walker suggests that Musk's actions are part of a pattern where he engages with political divides to assert his influence over elected governments.

Venus De Carvalho points out that the ban is temporary and intended to prompt compliance with Brazilian law, not a complete shutdown of the platform.

The discussion highlights the complexity of balancing free speech with the need to regulate social media to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech.

The ban in Brazil is seen by some as a necessary step to hold social media platforms accountable, while others view it as an overreach of government authority.

The show's guests express concerns about the lack of transparency in how social media algorithms may manipulate information and impact democracy.

The situation in Brazil is compared to other countries' approaches to regulating social media, with Europe being seen as a leader in establishing strict regulations.

The ban is discussed as a potential lesson for other countries on the importance of establishing clear regulations for social media operations within their jurisdictions.

The show concludes with a call for more international dialogue on creating checks and balances for social media companies to ensure they operate within the laws of the countries they serve.

Transcripts

social media platform X goes dark in

Brazil it failed to comply with a court

order to block accounts linked to

disinformation owner Elon Musk says it's

a Crackdown on Free Speech how much

politics is involved and could other

countries follow suit this is Inside

Story

[Music]

hello and welcome to the program I'm D

nauga social media giant X has been

banned in Brazil it's the latest

development in a months-long dispute

between a Supreme Court judge and Tech

billionaire Elon Musk over censorship

and disinformation Brazil isn't the

first country to restrict access to the

platform the ban is reigniting a debate

about the role social media plays in

politics freedom of speech and the

spread of misinformation how should

social media Giants be regulated and the

censorship being used as a political

tool we'll explore these issues on more

with our guests in a moment but first

this report by Kata Lopez

hon like many students 18-year-old Anna

gets her news from social media now that

X is banned in Brazil she's looking for

other platforms

people my age aren't really in the habit

of watching TV news or reading the news

and Twitter or X was a way to get news

from around the world so I've lost touch

a little with what's happening

globally Supreme Court Judge Alexander

de Mor says ex-owner Elon Musk failed to

comply with an order to suspend accounts

linked to spreading

disinformation and know the truth even

if the truth is unpopular mus called him

an evil dictator and accused him of

trying to silence dissent and

conservative

views the billionaire investor has

aligned himself with right-wing figures

like Brazil's former president T

bolsonaro and Donald Trump the current

president Luis inas Lula Silva welcomed

the ruling saying musk is out of

line having a lot of money doesn't allow

you to disrespect the Supreme Court Elon

musk's an American citizen he's not a

citizen of the world he can't offend

presidents Congressman the senate or the

Supreme Court who does he think he

is musk is repeatedly louded in

conservative and right-wing circles as a

hero of free speech and the role X

formerly known as Twitter plays in

politics globally is

significant the platform has been banned

in Pakistan since elections in February

with the government citing threats to

National Security as a reason

in Venezuela Nicolas Maduro shut it down

when Nationwide demonstrations broke out

in response to his contested election

Victory Russia also banned the app after

it invaded Ukraine in

2022 and temporary or permanent

restrictions have been imposed in

several countries including China Iran

and Egypt Brazilians have lost access to

the platform and can face Hefty fines if

they're caught using an encrypted

connection

when musk closes his office saying he

won't comply with court rulings the

Judiciary reacts it's not against Elon

Musk it's against any company especially

the big techs which sometimes feel very

comfortable disrespecting court

rulings Brazil's ban of the popular

social media site highlights the role it

and other platforms play in freedom of

speech misinformation and politics Kya

Lopez Alan Al jazer for insight story

okay let's bring in our guest joining us

from London is Flora rebella aruni who's

a senior adviser on technology and human

rights who led research and advocacy

projects on the role of disinformation

in Brazil's 2022 presidential elections

in Newcastle in the UK is Chris stokel

Walker who's a technology and digital

culture journalist he hosts a podcast

called tectonic which looks at freedom

of expression online

also joining us from London but just off

the plane from Brazil is Venus de

carvalo who's a reader in Brazilian

studies at King's College London and

also the founder of the observatory of

democracy in Latin America thanks for

your time with us on Inside Story um

venicius if I may start with you since

you're just off the plane in Brazil uh

from Brazil how is this being seen over

there thank you very much for having me

here first of all and yes just coming

back from brazila was just there when uh

this this order was issued by the

Judiciary and it's been quite

controversial of course we see a lot of

people that supporting this this court

order um and also those who are using

that mostly uh and especially those that

were associate with the the right-wing

govern previous government are

complaining that this is a sort of

transgression of the right of speech and

um and also a sort of suspension of

democracy in Brazil um I think this is

reflecting very well the sort of

division that the country seen even

before this court order decision so it's

just another another part of this game

uh of let's say division that the

country is leing right now okay Chris

the judge accused X of treating The

Social Network quote like a No Man's

Land a veritable land without law by

allowing the massive propagation of

misinformation hate speech and

anti-democratic attacks but at the same

time ex posted that the shutdown by the

judge is simply because we would not

comply with his illegal orders to censor

his political opponent opponents I mean

is this ultimately down to whether it's

a question of uh Free Speech versus

sovereignty I think that Elon Musk would

would like us to believe that I think

that uh many people uh in judiciaries

and in governments around the world

might be echoing what the Brazilian

judge said there although maybe not in

quite as strong terms because they try

and keep a relatively uh civil

relationship I suppose with Elon Musk

but yes this is undoubtedly the the kind

of area in which musk likes to dabble he

knows that it is possible for him to

kind of engage with political divides

and we've seen in Brazil a huge

political divide after the election and

he likes to try and decide that he is

going to get involved in this on a a

sort of social level and so he is seeing

this I think as a free speech fight I

think that the judge does have however

some very legitimate concerns whether we

we trust or or not trust the the kind of

request and the validity of those

requests to take down these things we do

know that Elon Musk has decided that he

is going to try and flout a lot of these

orders and take a grand stand while

doing so so I think that we ought to be

a little bit concerned about this in

terms of well if Elon Musk is doing this

and with Twitter and and kind of Brazil

is he going to do this with other

platforms elsewhere okay uh we'll get to

that a little later but let me bring in

Flora what's your opinion I mean does

this ban on X constitute a violation of

spre spe Free Speech uh principles or or

not absolutely not um braz is a

sovereign country and musk is sitting in

this virtual Ivory Tower where he claims

that he's entitled to theci side whether

to respect or not a Judicial measure

from the Supreme Court of the country so

it's not a matter of free speech again

he's using this um speech to make sure

that he engages um you know friendly

cohorts in Brazil and abroad to support

his illegal actions in Brazil you can

surely challenge uh legal de in court

and using the judicial uh system to do

so H it's entitled is our right but you

have to go through the system and right

now he's just simply deciding not to

respect what are you basing that on

Flora so unfortunately uh musk has been

doing very public several documents that

are confidential between the Supreme

Court and acts and for months now musk

has been public saying that he will

simply not respect judicial measures

coming from morai because he believes

they are unconstitutional and everybody

is entitled again to challenge decisions

but then you have to go through the

proper Judiciary process to do so and

musk is simply deciding to use its own

platform its own megaphone to decide

whether to comply or not with the laws

of a sovereign country and that's the

problem you should still even if you

don't agree with the decision just use

the judicial system around the country

so you can then challenge legally those

decisions that you think are unfair

venicius I see nodding to what Flora has

to say I mean the final straw we should

mention uh before X's Banning and

blocking in Brazil came on Thursday when

musk ignored a deadline that was put

forward by the Judiciary to name a new

legal representative for the country I

mean from the moment that X violated

that law by not naming a representative

wasn't it expected that they would be

held accountable for this

absolutely and I totally agree with my

both colleagues that mentioned said

before um I think that we what we have

here is just a violation of uh of a

Brazilian legal system and decisions of

the Judiciary and there are ways that

they can um they can go against this

this decision but it must observe the

legal terms here Elon Musk is not a

representative elected by the Brazilian

population to to act in the parliament

or in the Judiciary to say what is not

what is or not uh constitutional in the

country um another important aspect here

that many people and musk indeed as well

was saying that uh Moray was acting

monocratic in these decisions but um uh

to to support his decision next week I

think Monday already the Supreme Court

will join together to to vote the morai

decision and everything points out that

they will support it even considering

that a hard decision uh it will be voted

by this the the entire uh the entire

assemble of Judges the 12 judges of the

Supreme Court that means means that uh

we are getting here again a violation of

Brazilian sovereignity in some terms

when someone decided just because holds

a company that has makes a lot of money

um to to violate this these laws and

decisions of Justice in Brazil and the

second point it's important to say that

this sort of debates and controversies

are quite good for for X they they live

aot also based on that more more f for

debates and discussions that will give

more uh visibility to the platform and

to musk as well okay Chris I see you're

agreeing what Venus has to say on in

terms of the visibility when it comes to

X but but how significant is this

decision for the company itself because

as we know Brazil is one of the biggest

markets for x and there's a statistic

market research group E marketer says

some 40 million Brazilians that's

roughly 1if of the population access X

at least once a

month yeah if we we contextualize that

further e marketers data is sometimes a

little bit shaky sometimes overstates

things a little little bit based on

different measurements and so it's not

like for like but you know X's user base

is probably also around about a fifth of

that is Brazilian uh maybe a little bit

less maybe a little bit more depending

on how you count but this would be a

significant blow in terms of the number

of users that it loses but it is frankly

uh playing into Elon musk's hands I

suppose that this is banned and it goes

back to what Flora said and also what

felus has said in terms of this is

musk's Mo he likes to pick fights with

people and and try and test their metal

and decide whether or not he is bigger

and more powerful than elected

governments elected judges those who sit

in power and have this kind of

democratic right to say these are the

laws of our country either you like them

or lump them and he's done this in the

past with Australia he he's gone into a

fight with their e safety commissioner

who's in charge of overseeing their

Online safety law over uh trying to take

down uh videos of images of a an attack

at a church that will broadcast through

X the E safety commissioner required

those to be taken down musk and X

basically took them to court he's doing

the same thing in Europe in the global

North in terms of arguing with tierry

Breton one of the commissioners of the

European Union over whether or not they

are breaking rules here and the EU has

taken uh preliminary action to decide

that X is in in breach of uh one of the

the digital markets act or the Digital

Services act in terms of not doing

things by the book so um yeah this is

musk realizing that he likes to be the

center of attention realizing that all

publicity is good publicity when it

comes to this sort of stuff and thinking

well I'm going to take a risk that

actually these people won't follow

through on their threats it just turns

out that increasingly we're seeing those

sorts of judiciaries those sorts of

governments really are okay Chris hang

on a second I got to ask you this I mean

you say that this is sort of um of Elon

musk's Mo but if you look at what

happened back in 2009 what the Obama

Administration at the time insisted it's

not meddling in Iran confirmed it had

asked Twitter at the time it was called

Twitter to remain open to help

anti-government protesters which were

taking place during

2009 Twitter had planned to temporarily

shut down the government intervened

asked them to stay online I wonder to

what extent X is sort of embedded or

following the US policy agenda and this

is simply not his own Mo as you call

it I think that's not true I think that

musk frankly wouldn't be cow Towing to

any US president not even Donald Trump I

believe that if Trump were to be elected

in uh November musk would probably

believe that he is a smarter individual

he has more power and he doesn't need to

follow those rules he could shape those

rules and so given the political divide

between him and Joe Biden and the Kam La

harus ticket as well I don't think that

there is any uh idea that musk might be

uh somehow in bed with them it is

interesting you do point out a really

fascinating point of which is you know X

formerly Twitter has long been the sort

of cradle of uh Democratic uh decision

making and the ability to kind of stir

up a populace against often

authoritarian Rule and and so there is

this concern here we had in the package

uh that opened up our discussion that it

is banned in in many kind of

authoritarian States and and viewers of

Al jaer will remember a decade and a

half ago the Arab Spring basically being

fermented through social media platforms

like Twitter actually being able to

share footage and and information about

what was happening helped bring that

across the region here I don't think

this is necessarily what's happening in

Brazil I think that um you know there is

an element of politics here no doubt we

know that Lula is very different to

bolaro in terms of his presidency and

political viewpoints as our two other

panelists will be able to comment on in

much more detail than I could but we

also know I think here um that there is

a difference between um what's happening

now and in Brazil and what happened

perhaps in 2009 in Iran and in the rest

of the Middle East around the Arab

Spring Flora would you like to weigh in

on

this of course um thank you Chris for

this because this is very important the

L latest decision to b x it's a

culmination of months of escalation and

it has been showed in the in the the

piece before so there were two Milestone

moments right this year back in April

2024 musk has deliberately decided to

put back online several profiles that

were under investigation already by the

Justice right spreading disinformation

hate speech and these individuals they

were monetizing on that content right so

April 2024 musk says I'm not respecting

any more judicial measures and that's

the escalation that started so the ban

of Twitter is actually the latest the

last resort that the Justice had in its

hands because when Twitter decided to

close its office last week and then

there was no legal representative in the

country to respond to any judicial

measure um then they were given 24 hours

to appoint a new legal representative

after those 24 hours there was no really

other measure to be taken by the

Judiciary in the country and the civil

law in Brazil sorry actually the civil

law in Brazil Demands a legal

representative to be appointed and the

internet bill in Brazil gives all those

you know escalation of measures by the

Judiciary so they gave a warning they

issued fines they warned that it would

be suspended and ultimately it led to

the ban so we've got to see this as an

escalation of events and not necessarily

something that just happened this week

because Justice um are tired of the

attacks that musk has been directing

towards them okay Chris go ahead and

respond yeah I just wanted to to add a

little bit more context to what what

Flor said I think it's really important

that we we think about this to listeners

and viewers of this program will have

seen me appearing earlier this week on

on a discussion similar to this around

pav durov the the CEO of telegram and

one of the issues around telegram that

we've had is with French authorities uh

that essentially there has not been that

accountability for issues of law

enforcement for issues of government

requests where there are these real

concerns around spreading disinformation

and so on so yes that trigger point all

this being there is no legal

representative for X is essentially an

abdication of responsibility by Elon

Musk and X more like the similar thing

that we've seen with pavl durov and I

think that's why we're starting to see

this drastic action against these Tech

CEOs first durov and Telegram and now

musk and X is that previously we've

always found social media CEOs a bit of

a problem frankly they they have often

kind of ignored the rules and pushed the

boundaries and the the the benefit of

what we would call disruption and

disruption has two different meanings

depending on whether you're a Silicon

Valley texi or you're the rest of the

world who affected by those decisions

but I think what's different here is

that even when it comes down to it at

the crunch Point those tech companies

have actually acceded to requests and

had those elements whereas now with with

musk here in particular and durov last

week There's an indication here that

they've refused to they've stepped away

from this due process of of judicial

reviews and also government requests to

try and say no we know better than you

and and our way or the highway is the

rule here okay Venus I mean is there a

feeling in Brazil

amongst those who uh do not support this

ban that the government that the

Brazilian government the judge in fact

could have taken uh perhaps alternative

measures to address uh the concerns

without resorting to a complete ban and

if so what are

they well yes and um I think one of the

topics that connect what our colleagues

were saying here um is that many people

in Brazil calling that a censorship um

but it's important to make a very clear

distinction here X is not burned in

Brazil it's temporary ly suspended until

it complies with uh uh some some

regulations and some um decisions of the

court so it's not a question of being

burned it's just to to to be comp

compliance with the law that's the first

point and of course many of the the

oppositions of the government in

particular or those who have their

accounts um Frozen or requested by law

to be put down um they are using that as

an opportunity to say that really there

is bias in the Brazilian uh decision on

the court here and the second point that

I would like to make also connecting to

what uh my colleague said before um is

that it's not clear how the platform

Works operate democratically speaking

it's not that everything that's sp there

it's really being treated the same way

we don't know clearly what algorithmic

system is in use to to share and more or

less um posts uh it's not clear how this

is been used in terms of uh manipulating

information so the risk uh for for this

here is huge and it's also proved that

this was important too in the attacks of

8 of January that you are just showing

now some image to to the audience so

it's clear that we have here really a

platform that in some way was actually

encouraging more anti-democracy than the

Democracy that pretends to be uh

spreading or

promoting okay Flora we touched upon

this a little bit I mean I wonder if you

can elaborate on how this action by

Brazil compares to other countries

approaches to regulating or suspending

uh social media

platforms right I think Chris brought a

very important point that I that I would

love uh to elaborate indeed so we are

seeing Trend in indeed that authorities

because there aren't necessarily

specific legislations to um hold social

media platforms accountable they're

having to rely on the existing laws

which is absolutely perfect and that's

how the way it should be but we also

have to be aware that not necessarily

the laws that we have in place in many

countries US is an example Brazil is

another example necessarily attend the

broad and vast uh different levels of

operation of these platforms and so if

we if you look at Brazil just last year

um we were about to vote a legislation a

bill called the fake news bill in Brazil

big Tech platforms although publicly

they say that they want to be regulated

and they would love to be regulated to

have legal certainty when attempts are

to actually pass a legislation they use

their own platforms and their own forums

to curb those um those attempts so we

are seeing X doing this now against the

judicial measures last year we saw meta

and Google using its own platforms to

convince the population that a bill

wasn't necessary and that bill would

just curb on freedom of speech so there

is different levels of how these

platforms try to shape the narratives

around legislations being put in place

to hold hold them accountable um we

mentioned briefly about Europe Europe

has been it is a model now it is a

blueprint for other countries to follow

suit in terms of how to regulate social

media platforms and we saw friends that

Chris mentioned before and that's also

important to realize us B Tik Tok so we

are seeing different levels of

accountability towards these platforms

that um are necessary because we as

society as democracies need to catch up

to these technological uh advancements

Chris do these measures though go far

enough or are we just at this point

seeing kind of um toughening up by

governments around the world towards

these social media platforms who are

saying look if you're going to overstep

then we're going to have to step in and

do something about it but but is it

enough I I think that um putting the

fear of God into Tech CEO is by

arresting admittedly a relatively small

one uh last week and

now standing up to a rather bigger one

and saying well we're going to cut off

one of your biggest markets is better

than we've done before I'm not going to

say that it is perfect but I think that

previously you the the long history of

the internet and social media in

particular is one of about a 25 years of

in action and trusting that big Tech

Executives will make their own rules and

that sunlight is the best disinfectant

and that we can trust them to step in

when it's needed and because of that we

had January 6th in the United States

we've had January the 8th in Brazil

which we've shown footage of and which

venicius was talking so eloquently about

the impact of there about these

anti-democratic measures that happen and

and we have also this huge confusion and

we we can't escape the fact that

politics is always tied up in this and

the Brazil case is a perfect example of

this you know fici has talked about how

this is essentially you know potentially

right-wing voices trying to get back a

little bit at leftwing voices claiming

censorship when in fact actually uh

Twitter's research admittedly before

Elon Musk took over although I don't

think many impartial observers would say

that Elon Musk has taken X as he's

rebranded it in anything like a leftwing

direction in fact probably the opposite

but back then Twitter did exhibit a a

right-wing bias in terms of the accounts

that it Amplified through its algorithm

and that was Twitter's own research

realizing that is the issue so um you

know there is this really interesting

element of both the people who recognize

that there does need to be an element of

bringing these Executives back to heal

are often those who are the most divided

in terms of how this should be done

because we are both simultaneously

living in the consequences of unchecked

uh social media regulation and also

trying to wrestle with it while having

that political divide that has been

caused by it venicius go ahead I see you

nodding and also I mean do you think

that there are any lessons from the

situation that that other countries

might learn from regarding uh the

balance between regulation and free

expression yes absolutely um I think um

even if it looks hard I think it's a

good decision and a decision that will

change parameters from now on on how big

TCH and X or other social media

companies uh we operate in some

countries thinking that they can just go

over uh regulations of those countries

um I think it's a good a good parameter

also to to show us how important is what

Flora said to discuss more uh more

clearly the regulations and norms for

for operations of those companies um in

different countries countries have

different rules and laws and they need

be observed there is no company that is

over and above all laws in the world and

Chris mentioned quite clearly we have

already enough data and enough studies

and research to start to create

parameters and I think this situation in

Brazil today even looking hard um it's a

good step in terms of giving more

more as I said parameters to to create

checks and balances for those companies

operating in democracies that's what I

think we need now and that's a lesson

that Brazil can be teaching now for many

countries in the world that taught that

they never could face powers like

those all right we'll have to leave it

there thank you so much for joining us

thanks to my guest Flora rebella aruni

Chris stok Walker and venicius dealo

thanks so much thank you for watching

you can see the program again anytime by

visiting our website Al ja.com for

further discussion you can go to our

Facebook page facebook.com/ AJ Insight

story you can also join that

conversation on X our handle is AJ

inside story from myself the whole team

here in delha thanks for watching and

bye-bye for now

[Music]